Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 <br />Page 12 <br />to the park and lake; staff’s update to the Commission on the status of the AUAR update in <br />relationship to this proposal and the 60-day land use review process; and public access to <br />Langton Lake for non-residents. <br />Applicants <br />Theresa Greenfield, Director of Land Development for Rottlund Homes and David <br />Bernard Builders and Developers <br />Ms. Greenfield noted that, also present tonight, were Linda Fisher, Land Use Counsel for the <br />applicant with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.; and Joe Samuel, Project Manager and <br />Senior Professional Engineer with RLK Incorporated. <br />Ms. Greenfield briefly reviewed the four (4) action requests before the Commission tonight; <br />and reiterated the development team’s commitment to the City of Roseville. Ms. Greenfield <br />noted that this proposal had been provided a public viewing at various open house processes <br />recently hosted by the applicant. Ms. Greenfield recognized the community’s initial <br />discussions beginning in 1973 to protect and preserve Langton Lake and protecting and <br />preserving area natural resources; and the ultimate creation of a concept plan to honor the <br />Comprehensive Plan, and 2001 Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan. <br />Ms. Greenfield further reviewed the proposed housing mix and opportunities presented; <br />preservation of open space as designated by the Parks and Recreation Commission; and <br />location of Twin Lakes Parkway. Ms. Greenfield recognized the numerous details to be <br />refined; and concurred with the recommendations outlined in the staff report; and sought <br />Planning Commission support to move forward to work with the DRC, permitting process and <br />agency review, with a goal of initiating construction in the spring of 2007. Ms. Greenfield <br />noted that the proposed plan responded to concerns previously echoed throughout the <br />community through public meetings, and eliminated the retail with the project boundaries; <br />honoring the Twin Lakes Parkway location further away from the park; additional open space <br />adjacent to the park; increased office space to increase higher paying jobs and increased city <br />tax base. <br />Chair Traynor observed that the proposed housing mix would be the largest one-time <br />expansion of housing in the community since the 1960’s; and requested substantial input <br />from the HRA in consideration of that housing mix. <br />Ms. Greenfield expressed enthusiastic response to working with the HRA; noting that, to- <br />date, the developer had been focused on the overall concept plan, but intended to honor the <br />current redevelopment contract as it addressed the affordable housing stipulations; and <br />welcome ongoing dialogue with and utilization of the HRA’s extensive study and research of <br />the community and area housing needs and current inventory. <br />Ms. Greenfield also addressed Commission comments regarding green building and LED <br />certification; again referring to the negotiated redevelopment contract in existence, and the <br />developer’s commitment and intention to apply water resource efficiencies, low flow fixtures, <br />low rate irrigation systems, recycling of construction waste, and other considerations. <br />Discussion included various price points for various types of housing opportunities, ranging <br />from $200,000 - $350,000, depending on style; numerous proposed access points to Langton <br />Lake on the south for non-residents and/or non-tenants; additional discussions with the Parks <br />and Recreation Commission for their suggestions; market value for office space and tenant <br />interest and inquiry with the developer to-date; uniqueness of the site for the business <br />community; and connection of Twin Lakes Parkway, depending on the outcome of the AUAR <br />Update and review. <br />Public Comment <br />Robert Rouda, 946 Lydia Drive <br />Mr. Rouda thanked the applicant for their response to previous public comment; however, <br /> <br />